Vandermeide v. Young
2013 UT App 31
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Neighbors dispute over a six‑foot fence between Vandermeide and Young properties; Vandermeides built the fence south of their believed boundary to avoid encroachment.
- Survey later showed the fence sat in no‑man’s land, not on either property line.
- April 1, 2004 meeting offered to move the fence if upset; Young declined to move it.
- March 18, 2005 and April 1, 2004 incidents led to Young removing the fence; Vandermeides sued for damages and other claims.
- Trial court ruled for Vandermeides on trespass to chattels and denied quiet title/reformation claims; award of attorney fees under bad‑faith statute.
- On appeal, court remands to reconcile inconsistent findings but affirms elsewhere; no fees awarded on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court adequately ruled on quiet title/possession claims | Youngs contend quiet title via adverse possession or reformation | Vandermeides argue no ownership/quiet title issues were properly decided | Remanded to reconcile inconsistent findings; no decision on quiet title preserved here |
| Whether reformation of deed should have been granted | Youngs prove mutual mistake or fraud to alter deed language | Vandermeides disputing intent; court erred in burden allocation | Remand for clear consideration of mutual mistake/fraud; no improper findings upheld without clear support |
| Whether the court's findings were internally inconsistent requiring reversal | Youngs argue title chain outcome inconsistent with Squires’ status | Vandermeides contend findings supported; inconsistency nonetheless present | Remand to reconcile inconsistent findings and determine proper title |
| Whether the bad‑faith attorney‑fees award was proper | Youngs challenge basis for fee award | Court’s reasoning tied to bad‑faith conclusion oncounterclaims | Affirmed as to basis; no cross‑appeal on fee denial; remand does not affect the award decision on appeal |
| Whether any party is entitled to fees on appeal | Youngs request appellate fees | Vandermeides oppose fees; appeal not frivolous | No appellate fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- LeGrand Johnson Corp. v. Peterson, 420 P.2d 615 (Utah 1966) (duty to make findings on material issues; Rule 52(a))
- RHN Corp. v. Veibell, 96 P.3d 935 (Utah 2004) (reformation of instruments; extrinsic evidence admissible; clear and convincing standard)
- State v. Applegate, 194 P.3d 925 (Utah 2008) (standard for trial findings and appellate review of findings)
- Marchant v. Park City, 788 P.2d 520 (Utah 1990) (burden to prove adverse possession elements; tax payment relevance)
- Weight v. Bailey, 147 P. 899 (Utah 1915) (presumption that deed evidences intent; burden to prove otherwise)
- Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6 (Utah 2011) (malicious prosecution element; objective/prospective standard)
- Peters v. Pine Meadow Ranch Home Ass’n, 151 P.3d 962 (Utah 2007) (sanctions for improper appellate briefs; standards for review)